The deployment of National Guard troops to various U.S. cities, particularly Washington, D.C., has sparked a series of legal challenges that are currently unfolding in multiple courts across the country. These disputes, which include cases in the nation’s capital, West Virginia, Oregon, Illinois, and Tennessee, stem from President Donald Trump’s efforts to send military forces into Democratic-run cities to assist with public safety and crime reduction. However, these efforts have met with resistance from local officials and civic groups, leading to a complex legal landscape marked by overlapping lawsuits and conflicting court rulings.
In Washington, D.C., a significant legal confrontation is taking place as U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, scheduled a hearing to consider a request from the District of Columbia Attorney General, Brian Schwalb. Schwalb seeks an order to remove more than 2,000 National Guard troops currently patrolling the city’s streets. This deployment followed President Trump’s executive order in August declaring a “crime emergency” in the capital, despite the Justice Department’s own data indicating that violent crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low. Within weeks of the order, over 2,300 Guard members from eight states and the district were deployed under the Secretary of the Army’s command, supplemented by hundreds of federal agents.
The Attorney General’s office argues that the continued presence of these troops threatens the constitutional fabric of the district, warning that "our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand." Schwalb’s attorneys also pointed out that the Guard is expected to remain through at least the following summer, raising concerns about the long-term militarization of the city’s streets. In contrast, government lawyers counter that Congress has granted the president the authority to command the D.C. National Guard, labeling the lawsuit as a politically motivated stunt. They contend that the deployment is part of a successful strategy to combat violent crime in the district.
Despite the emergency period officially ending in September, the Guard presence remains substantial, with over 2,200 troops still stationed in Washington. Several states, including West Virginia, which contributed 300 to 400 troops, have indicated plans to withdraw their forces by the end of November unless the deployment is extended. However, this contribution from West Virginia has also sparked legal action. A local civic group named the West Virginia Citizen Action Group has filed a lawsuit challenging Governor Patrick Morrisey’s authority to send National Guard members out of state under these circumstances.
The West Virginia lawsuit argues that state law limits out-of-state Guard deployment to specific scenarios, such as natural disasters or emergencies requested by other states. The group’s attorneys, representing the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, assert that the governor cannot repurpose citizen-soldiers as a "roving police force" at the federal government's discretion without proper legal channels. Governor Morrisey, however, has defended the deployment, expressing pride in supporting the president’s efforts to restore order in the nation’s capital. The state attorney general’s office has moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the group lacks legal standing since no direct harm has been demonstrated.
Meanwhile, in Portland, Oregon, the legal situation is particularly complex. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued two temporary restraining orders earlier in the month aimed at preventing President Trump from deploying National Guard troops to the city. The first order barred the president from calling up Oregon’s own troops for deployment, while the second blocked him from sending Guard members from other states, a move meant to circumvent the initial restriction. However, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently stayed the first order, allowing the president to assume command of Oregon’s Guard forces. Judge Immergut now faces the decision of whether to lift the second restraining order as well.
The Justice Department has demanded that Judge Immergut dissolve the second order immediately, arguing that the legal reasoning behind it was already rejected by the appeals panel. Opposing this, Oregon’s attorneys contend that she should await a possible reconsideration by the full 9th Circuit before making a final ruling. A hearing scheduled for Friday was expected to focus on these conflicting legal positions, illustrating the ongoing uncertainty around the deployment of troops in Portland.
In the Midwest, the deployment of National Guard forces to the Chicago area is also under judicial scrutiny. U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment until the